His earlier films to me never felt like actual movies, they felt like applications to be a great filmmaker. I always sensed his potential, but for me it wasn't until Punch Drunk Love that he started living up to it.

Although I was entertained and impressed by aspects of Sydney/Hard Eight, Magnolia, and Boogie Nights, I never completely connected with them. Like I said, they seemed acedemic, like excercises, but not the real thing.

But I loved Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite movies ever. The guy's at an all-time high for me and I eagerly await what he'll do next.

To me he is a real modern filmmaker. Almost attaining legend in his lifetime status. I'm saying all this on the grounds of not having even seen all of "There will be Blood"...

Hard Eight proved that he was an actors director, despite the films obvious budgetary constraints, Paltrow was likable in it!

With "Boogie Nights" he Dirk Digglered into the mainstream, swung it around, did BUrt REynolds a favour and was the first man EVA to show cock on the screen, no, Jane Campion doesn't count (for obvious reasons). Oh yeah, and Rollergirl... It didn't set the world alight, but it showed a deft filmmaking touch that really, really, nearly equalled the speedball hurricane narrative whirlwind of Scorceses when he let himself relax after decades of fimmaking!

Magnolia is a modern day classic, a film that took the Altman ensemble, drizzled it with whimsy, fed it cocaine, smacked it around a little and then, WHAM, resuscitated it with CPR.

Punch Drunk Love is fun, the kinda fun the Coens really wished they still had. Hell, David Lynch wished he made this one. Its clever. And like his oeuvre, it says "life experienced".

So, whilst people whack off over Zack Snyder and drool over Darren Aronofsky, I can comfortably snigger at them in a cocker Bruce Lee kinda way, knowing full well that Paul THomas ANderson could kick their collective butts literally, figuratively, metaphorically, cinematically and stylistically. When the Matrix talks about Neo as Mr.Anderson, I don't think its a spoiler to say that Paul Thomas is the guy they are talking about... Sure, I curse the fact that Keanu Reaves was the chosen one to play his role... anyhow, enough of the messianic... ok, not enough... he is the nu ALTMAN/KUBRICK. KNEEEL.

Sure, There will be blood might suck and I'll have to take all this back... but...

Some talkbacker topside came up with the idea of Paul WS Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson swapping scripts and so we'd end up with P.T. Anderson's Resident Evil Versus Metroid and Paul WS Anderson's Seasons of Despair.

I really like what I've seen of PTA so far, which includes Boogie Nights, Hard Eight and TWBB. Gotta get around to Magnolia, been meaning to. And I forgot about Puch Drunk Love, damn. Gotta see that too. I actually own all of these films. So I'm like a fan on spec?

Anyway, PTA is the shit. And I'd love to see a PTA RE:4!! Just think of the great conversations between Leon and the girl he's rescuing (I forget her name) or Leon and the Spanish dude (who would HAVE to be played by Luis Guzman!) Fun Fun Fun.

"All we have is language; that's the one tool that enables us to grasp hold of our lives and transcend our fate by understanding it." -Harlan Ellison

Cory Everett wrote:When it comes to the next Paul Thomas Anderson film, all news is mysterious news. While we’re still not sure exactly which of Anderson’s films might be going into production first, it had looked like it might be his Thomas Pynchon adaptation “Inherent Vice” this fall, but recent casting speculation leads us to believe it may be the untitled religious drama sometimes referred to as “The Master,” which is now possibly to co-star Joaquin Phoenix alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman. The next little morsel of news comes from reliable fansite Cigarettes & Red Vines. The site received a tip from a reader that indicates that Anderson has been shooting tests with and operating a 65mm camera, which the site also points out, is the same camera used by Stanley Kubrick on “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Anderson has always been a big advocate of shooting on film and if this were to happen it would be a cinephile’s wet dream.

While it’s likely Anderson is indulging his inner Kubrick, the reader suggests Anderson may have been inspired more recently by cinematographer Wally Pfister and director Christopher Nolan‘s use of the format on “The Dark Knight” and “Inception.” Pretty much everyone who saw “The Dark Knight” in IMAX had the same jaw-dropping reaction to the scenes filmed in the large format so it’s not entirely unreasonable. The aerial shots and action sequences looked so good (and so crystal clear) it’s actually frustrating to see so many other films fake the format by blowing up 35mm and calling it “IMAX” because the quality just isn’t there (We’re looking at you, pretty much every other tentpole.) “Inception” did not shoot in IMAX (due to the size and unwieldy nature of the IMAX cameras) but was instead filmed with much more manageable 65mm cameras, which is the best possible quality for film outside of IMAX. The site points out that “Nolan shot 65mm in a square, IMAX format whereas Kubrick kept the format at 2:35.1 to contain as much detail as possible for the optical effects.”

While it’s not clear whether he might be using it for “The Master” or “Inherent Vice,” it’s possible (though unlikely) he could be using it for some other purpose entirely. (Home movies? Superbowl commercial? Nature doc?) The site mentions they received an image to corroborate this story but due to the secretive nature of the information are unable to publish it. (They do include a hilarious drawing/recreation in its place.) The report also suggests that for the first time, Anderson’s next film will not be shot by regular cinematographer Robert Elswit though it’s not clear yet who might replace him. Elswit’s work has been such an integral (and beautiful) part of Anderson’s films that we’ll be sad to see him go but hopefully they can collaborate again on whichever project comes after.

Up to now one of the best US directors around. In full control of his creative vision, ambitious in scope, has literate scripts and storylines and is very, very good at getting performances out of his actors. He's one fine, intelligent filmmaker.

if that were the case, tom cruise wouldn't come within 50 feet of him.

that teaser looks... interesting. i like the music (a quick IMDB check shows that he's working with jonny greenwood again, so that would probably be why) and the atmosphere. i'd have NO CLUE that this movie has anything whatsoever to do with scientology, hell, LRH (or whatever they're calling him in the movie) doesn't even appear in it.

They have a couple sequences from THE MASTER up on the mothersite. I watched one of them, which only contained stuff I'd already seen in the trailer and decided I want to go into this one blank and so I didn't watch the other two.

Spandau Belly wrote:They have a couple sequences from THE MASTER up on the mothersite. I watched one of them, which only contained stuff I'd already seen in the trailer and decided I want to go into this one blank and so I didn't watch the other two.

I'm with you...I'm done looking at new stuff for this movie. I'm already on board, and don't want to see anything else...

As a through and through merciless person I'm plain baffled by the praise There Will Be Blood received.

Just one example, I remember people in this very zone wondering if Plainviews feelings for his son were genuine or if he just used him for his business. A good chance to judge this would have been the first time they're reunited after Plainview sent him off. Too bad the scene was shoot from 72 miles distance. Not just omitted, I could have lived with that, but included and deliberately shoot to withhold the interesting and crucial information. As a viewer I just felt fucked over. Several times. Over and over again.

I think he legitimately loved his son. And to me, that is obvious when they are reunited. Plainview allows H.W. to strike him several times while Plainview continually forces a hug. Then when he finally gets the hug, he says that hug makes him feel good and hugs him for a long time. There's no real audience for Plainview at that point, so he's not forcing the hug for show purposes.

But if you don't like the movie because it was too ambiguous for you, that's fine. Lots of people don't like it.

I felt the movie was beyond ambiguous. Like the answers to my questions weren't out in the open to be found but rather written down secretly, sealed in an envelope and waved in front of my face with the chant 'Haha I'm not going to tell you'

Al Shut wrote:I felt the movie was beyond ambiguous. Like the answers to my questions weren't out in the open to be found but rather written down secretly, sealed in an envelope and waved in front of my face with the chant 'Haha I'm not going to tell you'

let me guess... you must have really hated the end of Lost in Translation

Having seen only two movies of each (not counting Magnolia which apparently made so little impression on me I'm not 100% sure I even saw it)I wouldn't feel comfortable making such a definite statement. But I sure know which two I preferred and it weren't Andersons.

Way more predominant and (for me) frustrating than anything in Lost in Translation. Not limited to the ending, visually aided by cutting away from something and somehow managed to deny answers the very moment the question forms in my head.

artistic choice. not every artist's choice will please every member of the audience. if it did then it wouldn't be art.

i have no problem with that scene or the sense of ambiguity in the film. it's an interesting film and holds sort of a unique place for me. i've seen it a few times. it's slow and quiet and obfuscated, and every time i watch it i get kinda bored as i'm watching. but after some time has passed, i start thinking about it again and it worms its way into my brain and makes me want to go back and watch it again. it's like the movie gets better when you're not actually watching it. eventually i get compelled to the point of having to watch it again, and then the cycle starts all over.

while the movie didn't beat you over the head with a singular message I don't think it is all that difficult to see and understand what the film is saying when it has something to say, even if somewhat vague at times. i think people who don't "get it" just can't see the forest for the trees or don't know how to read a movie if it doesn't use typical plot or character mechanisms

I'm certainly no stranger to not getting things and have my dense days (I call them weekdays). But in this case I got the feeling throughout the movie that I knew what it wanted to tell me. Nothing.

Not to be confused with a movie that hasn't anything to say. Not to be confused with a movie that's completely over my head where I have no clue what's going on. Just a refusal to communicate with the audience that hit me in the face every 5 minutes.

the film is what it is, it isn't as if there is some hidden message or symbolism that you have to decipher, it is all right there. maybe it is just too obvious for people to see, then again maybe they are looking for too simplistic a message, too singular

the film's themes or "message" are pretty upfront, but i think the character of plainview is more of an enigma. he embodies the Nietzchian "will to power" concept to such an extreme degree that it ultimately ruins him. but how much of his humanity he does or does not retain through his activities is ultimately a mystery and the film is content to let you decide that for yourself.

So I saw THE MASTER last night. I could've turned around and walked back into the cinema and watched it again right away. I found it engrossing and entertaining from start to finish. The film takes on the subject matters of psychotherapy and cults, which I find interesting very interesting. I have seen a couple movies in the last year with overlapping subject matter such as A DANGEROUS METHOD, MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE, and SOUND OF MY VOICE, and I found THE MASTER appealed to me the most because Anderson builds such entertaining scenes and original characters. I like seeing people who try to behave with dignity losing their composure when somebody strikes a nerve, skinny average dudes in formal clothes rolling around fighting in awkward ways, shouting matches etc. And I felt the examination of the subject matter was more in the subtext of this film.

Also, as most of you know, Hoffman's character is inspired by L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology. I know a bit about Hubbard and Scientology and found this film knew when to break from its inspiration and just be its thing. I would say the film never feels judgemental and so it never comes across like stealthy attack on Scientology. It just feels like its own story.

The film is very similiar to THERE WILL BE BLOOD in its tone, themes, type of humour, structure, and certain scenes felt similiar. This is probably the first time Anderson has made a movie that I feel is very similiar to something he has already made. This is not a problem for me because I love these types of slow moving movies that just take a couple of interesting three dimensional characters and follow their relationship over the years. You have to be a great filmmaker in order to pull this type of thing off without it feeling formless, and luckily enough, Anderson is a great filmmaker.

I was absolutely blown away by Phoenix in this movie. He creates a very original and memorable character and never breaks character or overplays it for a single second. I consider it challenging to play these types of characters with lots of quarks and odd speech patterns and no impulse control without it feeling like an Oscar application, but he pulls it off with complete natural ease. That's not to say Hoffman isn't great too, it's just that I think we all knew he had this type of character in him.

I really liked this movie and look forward to revisiting time and again over the years. It's beautiful to look at, with fascinating characters, some good laughs, and interesting subject matter. I couldn't ask for anything more.

So I finished reading the novel 'Inherent Vice' by Thomas Pynchon, which will be the basis for PT Anderson's next film. The novel reads verymuch like THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and I think Anderson's challenge here will be making it feel different from LEBOWSKI. It follows a pothead hippie detective, who calls himself Doc, as he bumbles around 1960s Los Angeles on a missing person case while getting involved in various players' agendas. The mystery plot mostly functions to push the main character around into contact with different California subcultures and have funny interactions with them along with various stoner comedy moments.

I know Anderson has already cast Joaquin Phoenix as Doc, but I couldn't read the novel without imagining Doc as Jeff Bridges. There are lots of characters, many of which get little time in the story. Some only appearing for one scene. I imagine the rest of the cast will be filled out by a return of Anderson's regulars from BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA. There is a character that might as well be called Luis Guzman. Julianne Moore is a pretty versatile actress and I can see her fitting into a couple different roles here. And other roles could easily be filled by PS Hoffman and WH Macy. There's one character who is an oily German hitman that seems like it was written for Christoph Waltz. There is a main supporting character called Bigfoot Bjornsen, who is a middle-aged authoritarian Swedish cop with a hatred for hippies and a soft spot for showboating on television, and of course, I kept picturing Dolph Lundgren in this role although I imagine it will probably go to John Reilly who did a good job as the straightedged cop in MAGNOLIA.

Anyway, it wasn't the greatest read in the world. It had plenty of laughs in the form funny situations and the hostile banter between hippie gumshoe Doc and the straightedged cop Bjornsen. It also felt like it went on a lot longer than it needed to and lost momentum whenever it stopped being funny. It will be interesting to see what Anderson does with it on the screen and how Phoenix plays the main character.

I just checked the cast on this one. Josh Brolin is playing the straightedged Swedish cop. He'll do fine.

They've got Eric Roberts listed in the cast in an unspecified role and nobody in the role of Mickey Wolfmann, who is a key figure in the novel. I'm going to guess Roberts is playing him. It's a good fit, the character is definitely sleazy. When I read it I pictured a Robert DeNiro type, but Roberts works.

And one of the bigger roles is going to an actress named Katherine Waterston, who is unknown to me.

Looks promising. I really enjoyed the book. To be honest I'm annoyed that PTA filmed it in the same bleached-out monochrome as There Will Be Blood and The Master because (to me at least) it doesn't really match the tone of the story, but it looks like the humor is otherwise intact.